Kerbside collection of plastic bottles Guide - Eunomia Research ...

WRAP’s vision is a world without waste,where resources are used sustainably.We work with businesses, individualsand communities to help them reap thebenefits of reducing waste, developingsustainable products and usingresources in an efficient way.Written by: Joe Papineschi, Andy Grant, Alison Holmes and Thomas Vergunst from EunomiaFront cover photography: Detail of blue and green plastic bottlesWRAP and Eunomia Research & Consulting believe the content of this report to be correctas at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content andregulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with theirsuppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of thecost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such asscale, location, tender context, etc.).The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant productsand specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy,WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damagearising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete ormisleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consultwith the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfytheir specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company doesnot constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance ofindividual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced freeof charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in a misleading context.The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of acommercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditionson its web site: www.wrap.org.ukContentsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesGuidepage 2

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012ContentsPages1 Introduction 3–52 Structure of this guide 63 Policy context 74 Market context 85 Plastic bottle collection in the UK 19–206 Scheme design 21-257 Household communications 26-338 Point of collection 34-369 Post-collection sorting and baling 3710 Material Recycling Facilities (MRFs) 38Glossary 42Appendices 43A – Plastic bottle grades 43B – Example communications 451 IntroductionThis guide has been developed to support local authorities in England and Scotlandthat are either planning to collect, or are currently collecting, plastic bottles at thekerbside. The guide focuses on maximising plastic bottle material quality and/orcapture rates from plastic bottle-only collection services.An increasing number of local authorities collect a wider range of plastic packagingthan just plastic bottles. These household plastic packaging schemes target avarying range of materials, which can lead to higher yields of plastic being collected.However, for a number of reasons discussed below, the collection of householdplastic packaging is currently a topic of some debate within the recycling industry.Whilst this document does not seek to compare the advantages and disadvantages ofbottle-only versus household plastic packaging collections, it does focus on some ofthe benefits of bottle-only collections, particularly with regard to quality control.For authorities that are planning to expand their plastic bottle collection serviceto incorporate other non-bottle plastic packaging, WRAP is due to publish anaccompanying guide, which focuses specifically on supporting authorities in thecollection of rigid household plastic packaging.IntroductionContentsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesGuidepage 3

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20121.1 Target audienceLocal authoritiesThis guide is aimed specifically at local authorities that:• Currently have plastic bottle collections in place at the kerbside and are lookingfor advice on:• improving plastic bottle material quality; and/or• increasing material quantity.• Are seeking advice on rolling out a plastic bottle collection service at the kerbsidewhich achieves high plastic bottle capture and quality rates.Senior officersThis guide is targeted at senior officers within waste teams at local authorities. Itaims to communicate the key messages in a digestible and concise format that canbe consulted easily during busy schedules.To ensure ease of access, readability and the broad applicability of the guide, thisdocument does not include detailed technical information on implementing theadvice provided. Such detailed information can be obtained fromWRAP’s local authority advisory service.1.2 Scope of this guideAs this document is aimed specifically at local authorities, the interventions that arehighlighted are focused predominantly on those that can be implemented by localauthorities themselves. This document focuses on how local authorities and theircontractors can achieve the highest level of quality and quantity from a kerbsideplastic bottle collection scheme. To this end, a number of local authorities, materialrecovery facility (MRF) operators and reprocessors were consulted and their feedbackintegrated into the guide.1.3 DefinitionsIn this guide, quantity and quality are defined as follows:• Quantity – meaning the quantity of plastic bottles captured at the kerbside. Twokey measures of this are ‘material capture’, which is commonly measured inkilograms per household per year, and ‘capture rate’, which is the percentageof available material successfully captured for recycling by a kerbside collectionscheme.• Quality – quality is a subjective term as acceptable levels of impurity vary byreprocessor, and also depend on the equipment and manufacturing processesused, and the markets sold into. Fundamentally, therefore, the definition ofquality could be viewed as the supplier’s ability to meet the buyer’s expectations,as set out in their specification. However, given the need to be specific in thecontext of the guide, quality is defined by the extent of impurities within the targetmaterial stream.IntroductionContentsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesGuidepage 4

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012This guide focuses mainly on two grades of plastic: PET and natural HDPE bottlegrades. These are both used in the UK for the production of rPET and rHDPE. Thereare two key stages where the discussion of quality is particularly important:• firstly, when material is entering the plastic recovery facility (PRF) sortingprocess; and• secondly, when material is entering the rPET and rHDPE preparation process.A local authority’s ability to influence quantity is limited to the earlier (collection)stages of the bottle recovery life cycle, including design of the recycling schemeand the degree to which households are encouraged to participate through effectivecommunication programmes. Quality, on the other hand, is something that can betargeted throughout the bottle recovery cycle.1.4 Our approachTo gather evidence for the development of this guide, several key areas of researchwere undertaken:• industry-perspective interviews with plastics reprocessors;• interviews with MRF operators;• interviews with local authorities that have demonstrated they are collectingplastic bottles at the kerbside in high quantities and/or of good quality;• European research; and• analysis of secondary data.SummaryThis evidence-based guide is relevant to senior officers and other key decisionmakersfrom local authorities that:• are collecting, or are looking to begin collecting, post-consumer plasticbottles as part of the household kerbside dry recycling collection service;• are interested in finding out how to improve the plastic bottle quality and/orquantity;• do not wish to expand the plastic bottle collection to include non-bottleplastic packaging in the short to medium term.IntroductionContentsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesGuidepage 5

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20122 Structure ofthis guideContentsLocal authority with plastic bottle collection service*AudienceLocal authority without plastic bottle collection serviceThis guide is organised so thatit reflects the life cycle of plasticbottle collection and recyclingfrom a typical local authority’sperspective and highlights the keyintervention points. This shouldallow readers to navigate easilyto the most applicable sections,regardless of whether or not theirauthority has a collection regimein placePolicy contextMarket contextPlastic bottlecollection in the UKScheme designThis section provides a summary of any relevant policy drivers in the context of plastic bottle collectionin Scotland and England.This section provides insights from the sorting and reprocessing industry into the supply of plastic bottles, the types of sortingand reprocessing facilities and processes in the UK, and plastic bottle quality.This section presents the latest statistics for plastic bottle recycling in the UK.For authorities with an established plastic bottle collectionin place this section is only going to be relevant if redesign isbeing considered (e.g. collection contract is coming to an endor service is performing poorly and a service change is beingconsidered).For authorities without a plastic bottle collection service thisis a key section. It is recommended that it is initiallyskim-read to provide an overview before reading subsequentsections in order to incorporate the actions presented in laterchapters in the design of any new service.HouseholdcommunicationsThis section examines 1) communications associated with theroll-out of a new scheme, and 2) ongoing communciations.Authorities would be advised to read section 7.3 on improvingongoing communications to households.This section examines 1) communications associated with theroll-out of a new scheme, and 2) ongoing communications.Both forms of communication are of relevance to authoritieswishing to implement a new service.Point ofcollectionAuthorities with a scheme can use the detail presented hereto assist them in maximising the quality of material that iscollected.Authorities without a plastic bottle collection service will benefitfrom the discussion in this section as it contains a number ofimplications that should be considered when designing a newscheme.Figure 1 Document structure*In 2010/11 90% of local authorities in the UKoffered a kerbside service for plastic bottlesPost-collectionsorting & balingMRFsThis section provides guidance on how post-collection sorting and compaction can be used to improve the quality (and thereforevalue) of plastic bottle collections.This section examines what measures local authorities can take in coordination with MRFs to ensure that they receive the highest prices forsorted and baled materials. Again, this section is relevant to both types of authorities, either as a source of ideas for implementation withinthe current scheme or for inclusion within future contracts.IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 6

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20123 Policy contextOverviewUnder the revised Waste Framework Directive there is a requirement to set upa separate collection of ‘at least the following: paper, metal, plastic and glass’from the household waste stream by 2015. However, the current policy settings inboth England and Scotland do not map out specific requirements for plastic bottlecollection and recycling. This section provides a summary of relevant policy driversin England and Scotland, and indicates relevant forthcoming policy in the Scottishcontext.Therefore, in terms of increasing capture, this guide is particularly pertinent forScottish local authorities. It is also worth noting that the Scottish targets, unlikethose in England, are carbon based, which has further implications because ofthe carbon benefits associated with recycling plastic bottles (these items have arelatively high value within the Scottish Government’s carbon metric relative to othermaterials). 43.2 Reprocessing objectivesThe 2011 Review of Waste Policy in England 5 set the scene for this guide byestablishing a quality-related challenge. That is:3.1 Relevant targetsIn England, the overarching objective is to recycle 50% of household waste by 2020,as outlined in the most recent Waste Strategy for England (2007). 1 Scotland’s targets,outlined in the Zero Waste Plan, 2 are to recycle 60% by 2020 and 70% by 2025, alongwith a maximum of 5% of waste to landfill by this time.The Zero Waste Regulations are likely to place a requirement on Scottish localauthorities to collect, as a minimum, paper, card, plastics, cans and glass. 3Ensuring that our approach to extracting recyclables, such as paper and plastic,from our waste generates material of sufficiently high quality to meet the needs ofreprocessors here and abroad and to comply with the international rules on wasteshipments.In Scotland, the Zero Waste Plan aims to encourage collection and recycling of moreplastics by developing facilities in Scotland.1. Defra (2007) Waste Strategy for England 20072. Scottish Government (2010) Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan3. Scottish Government (2011) Policy Statement4. Scottish Government (2011) Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan: Carbon Metric Guidance, March 20115. Defra (2011) Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextPolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 7

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20124 Market context 4.2 UK sorting facilitiesOverviewA number of major UK reprocessors were interviewed to obtain a balanced view ofthe market. Information was obtained on:• the supply of plastic bottles;• the types of sorting and reprocessing facilities in the UK; and• the views of reprocessors on quality and sorting processes.In cases where the kerbside collection system is multi-stream (kerbside sort),plastics that are not exported may be sent either directly for reprocessing/sorting ata PRF or to a MRF for further sorting into different polymer grades. The latter sortingprocess depends on the extent of the technology at the MRF. This is illustrated inFigure 2.Figure 2 Collection and sorting of plastic bottles in multi-stream systems.4.1 DefinitionsIn the context of this section, the following terms are important to understand:• Material recovery facility, or MRF, is a separation plant where kerbsiderecyclables are separated into material types and baled or loaded in bulk forfurther processing by specialist recyclers. Typical recyclables handled arepaper, card, metals, mixed plastic bottles and sometimes glass. Some MRFsalso separate one or more of the more abundant and higher value plastic bottlestreams, typically PET or HDPE. However, MRFs increasingly concentrate onseparating mixed plastic bottles for further separation at a specialist plasticsrecovery facility (PRF).• Plastic recovery facility, or PRF, is a facility set up specifically to sort plasticsby polymer type and/or colour. Some of the processes carried out at a PRF mayalso occur at the front end of a reprocessor site and some PRF operators havethemselves invested in downstream reprocessing to make high-grade finishedrecycled polymers.Simple sort line (mayinclude removal ofcans) and/or balerSupplied to PRF orexportedHousehold set outplastic bottesPlastic bottles sorted into separatecompartment of vehicleSupplied to MRF,possibly throughan in-feed plasticpackaging lineMaterials bulked/baled and sold to areprocessor with nofurther sortingFurther definitions of key terms are given in the glossary.See PRF process(Figure 4)See MRF process(Figure 3)IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 8

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012Household set-out plastic bottles4.2.1 Material recovery facilitiesIn cases where the kerbside collection system is single-stream, theco-mingled recyclables will be sorted in a MRF to separate plasticsfrom the other dry recyclables. A two-stream collection may alsobe sorted via a MRF in order to separate, for example, plastics fromcans.Figure 3 outlines how household plastics collected via single- ortwo-stream schemes may be sorted in different types of MRFs,based on the sorting technology used. We have characterisedMRFs as ‘small’ (manual sorting), ‘medium’ (more mechanised/automated sorting) or ‘large’ (heavily mechanised/automatedsorting). These MRF types are illustrative and there are manyexceptions to the general rule that larger MRFs are moremechanised than smaller MRFs. However, it is the case thatmore mechanised MRFs are more capital-intensive and thereforegenerally larger. They typically sort plastics into a greaternumber of polymer streams, with the higher throughput makingit financially viable to invest in more sophisticated optical sortingtechnologies to identify different polymer types.A larger MRF case study is illustrated in Table 1 using the exampleof Biffa’s Edmonton MRF.Section 10 of this guide gives further details about MRFs.MRFInputsMRFSortingMRFOuputsMaterialfrom mutistreamand bringcollectionsSmaller MRFS may thenbale a mixed rigid plasticproductMixed rigid plasticsPlastic bottles collected co-mingledwith other recyclablesSupplied to MRFSorting process to remove paper, cardboard, plasticfilms, glass, etc. to end up with a predominantlymixed rigid plastic streamMedium-size MRFs maythen use near-infrared(NIR) sorters and/or manualpicking to produce severalgrades of rigid plasticClear PETplastic bottlesNatural HDPEplastic bottlesLarge MRFs may then usenear-infrared (NIR) sortersand/or manual picking toproduce five or more gradesof rigid plasticsClear PETplastic bottlesNatural HDPEplastic bottlesColoured PETplastic bottlesFigure 3 Single- and two-stream collection systems and thesubsequent sorting of plastic bottles at ‘small’, ‘medium’ and‘large’ MRFs.See PRF process (Figure 4)Coloured HDPEplastic bottlesMixed rigid plasticsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 9

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012Table 1 Biffa’s Edmonton MRF – an example of good practice in the design andmanagement of a facility to produce quality PET and HDPE bottle materialsBiffa’s Edmonton Material Analysis Facility: A case studyBackgroundBiffa’s MRF at Edmonton, North London, is a large modern MRF. Fully operationalsince June 2010, the plant was designed for a throughput of 300,000 tonnes perannum and is currently processing 220,000 tonnes per annum with a complementof 250 staff. This scale of operation has made it viable to incorporate a high degreeof technology and manual quality control for the accurate sorting of plastics.Processes that lead to quality plastic outputs – an overviewThe Edmonton MRF separates five key rigid household plastic packaging productlines which include PET suitable for rPET production and natural HDPE that issupplied directly to the Biffa Redcar rHDPE production plant. The process diagrambelow shows in simplified terms how the plant separates plastic products. Theplant actually has two lines for separating co-mingled materials and a separatein-feed line for mixed containers. There are also a few processes not noted in thediagram for simplicity. It is important to note that there is a significant amount ofmanual removal of plastic films at various stages of the process. The followingsections detail the processes that help to maximise PET and HDPE quality. Anoverview process diagram is shown in Figure 4.Testing inputBiffa recognises that in order to produce quality materials, quality co-mingledinput is required. Loads arriving at the plant are regularly sampled (and sorted asa gravimetric assay), and suppliers are given feedback on the quality of the loads.If necessary, loads are rejected.Removal of other items to leavea container streamThe key to successful sortingof the separate plastic bottlestreams from a mixed plasticpackaging stream is to ensurethat as much other materialas possible is removed beforenear-infrared (NIR) separationof the polymer streams.The Edmonton processincludes numerous stages ofseparating other recyclates andcontaminants. The significantprocesses are several stagesof separating two-dimensionalitems (mostly fibres: paper andcard) from three-dimensionalitems (containers: rigidhousehold plastic packaging,glass and cans).Pre-sort – manualremoval of films andlarge items2D/3D sorting. Papersgo up, containers dropthroughIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 10

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012Removal of fibres andcontaminants from the plasticsand cans streamContamination of plasticproduct streams from fibresis a common problem withsome MRF-sorted plasticproducts. In addition to somedownstream process designand operations, the Edmontonplant incorporates equipmentto remove small pieces of fibrethat have escaped the previousfibre sort and have thereforeended up in the containerstream. The plant includes anair drum separator that utilisesa vacuum drum screen toremove light, small materials,such as small pieces of fibre,from the container stream. Afterthis process further pieces ofequipment (a fines screen andan air knife) remove additionalsmall contaminants from thecontainer stream.Air drum separatorremoving lightfractions fromcontainersAir knife (at rear)and screen removingsmall/light itemsfrom plastics andcansNear-infrared (NIR) sortersThe NIR sorters detect plasticpolymers and colours. Eachmachine looks for targetpolymers and colours and whendetected, instructs an air knifeto blow off the wanted item (apositive sort). The NIRs are setup at Edmonton to result inquality PET Natural and HDPENatural. The first NIR in linesorts all PET material positively,leaving everything else to pass.The PET-only stream thenpasses under a NIR whichpositively sorts for PET Natural.Thus material selected as PETNatural has been positivelyselected twice as PET. The sameprocess occurs on material thatpassed the PET line for HDPEselection.NIR process diagram (source: Axion for WRAP}NIR SeparatorIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 11

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012NIR cleanlinessNIR sorters rely on light being reflected. If the light source and sensors becomedirty the light cannot pass and items can be missed. The machines at Edmontonmonitor this situation and shut down if they become too dirty. However, this ismitigated by a frequent cleaning schedule that results in the machines beingthoroughly cleaned at least three times per shift. A clean air flow to the machine isalso important to avoid air nozzle corrosion. The Edmonton air circulation is highlyfiltered to remove moisture in particular.Post-NIR manual quality checkAlthough NIR sorters are anefficient way of sorting plasticsthey are not perfect and misssortsdo occur. It is essentialtherefore to have a dedicatedmanual check of plastic streamquality. This stage is oftenabsent from smaller MRFs.At Edmonton, three separatequality control cabins areoperated: one for PET, one forHDPE and the other for mixedplastics and recirculatingmaterial. In each cabin theoperatives pass incorrectlysorted material either onto theopposite belt or down a chute tobe sent back round.Post-NIR quality check for HDPEBunker and baling controlSorted material is held inbunkers before being sent to abaler. When switching from onematerial to the next, a mixedbale is produced. At Edmonton,good practice is followed andmixed bales are either splitand resorted or downgraded.Workers are incentivised toensure the quality of the bales.Finished bales are storedundercover so they do notabsorb moisture from rainfall.Finished HDPE natural being baledIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 12

Figure 4 Edmonton process flow diagram with a focus on plastic bottlesFilms andresiduesPaper andcardboardprocessesGlassLight fractionse.g. paper piecesSteelGlassRecycled intosystemAluminiumGravimetrictestingof inputmaterialManualpre-sortremoval2-dimensio nal/3-dimensionalseparationprocessesContainersGlassbreaker/separationPlasticsand cansAir separatorsOverbandmagnetFurther glassseparationFine particleseparationand air knifeEddy currentseparationRigid plastics3-way NIR separatingNIR separatingPETNIR separatingHDPE• postive sort on mixed plastics• postive sort on missed itemsto be sent back round• negative sort is residueResiduePETHDPENIR separating• postive sort on PET Natural(clear)• negative sort PET JazzNIR separating• postive sort on HDPE natural• negative sort HDPE JazzMixed plasticsRecirculatePETNaturalPETJazzHDPENaturalHDPEJazzManual QCManual QCManual QCManual QCManual QCManual QCBunkers andbalingBunkers andbalingBunkers andbalingBunkers andbalingBunkers andbalingBack tocontainersIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 13

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20124.2.2 Plastic recovery facilities: front-end of the reprocessing facilityFigure 5 Typical outputs from PRFsThe output from the separate collection or MRF processes may beeither:• baled and sent to a UK reprocessor;• baled and exported; or• fed in to a PRF for further sorting.Further sorting in a PRF may be necessary in order to produce the highquality plastic bottle bales required by bottle reprocessors in the UK (agood quality plastic bottle bale is considered to be at the very minimum85% plastic bottles).It is important to note that although there are several PRFs in the UK,they are all set up in slightly different ways, and are therefore designedto accept a variety of different input streams. The majority of PRFs aredesigned to accept a predominantly bottle-rich input material stream,and therefore have limited capacity to handle non-bottle plastics andother contaminants. However, there are a smaller number of facilitieswhich have capacity to handle a wider range of input materials, includingmixed plastic packaging and metals.PRFInputsPRFSortingPRFOutputsVarious grades of mixed plastic packaging with differing amounts of bottlesfrom various sourcesPET suitablefor rPETNaturalHDPEsuitable forrHDPEOther PET(mostlycoloured)ColouredHDPESorting processesPSPEAluminiumSteelLow/zero valuerecyclatesAt present most facilities in the UK have been designed for inputmaterial that is close to 40% PET, 40% HDPE and 20% other. Theinclusion of non-bottle rigid plastic packaging will therefore substantiallyalter this mix and could impact on sorting and reprocessing efficiencies.An example of the typical outputs arising from a PRF is shown inFigure 5 which makes it clear that the plastics are sorted into manymore polymer grades than is achievable at typical medium andlarge-scale MRFs.PPResiduesIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 14

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20124.2.3 ReprocessingOnce the different grades of plastic bottles have been sorted, material is typicallyflaked and cleaned using various washing processes. Some producers then sellthe flaked product. Other producers have extrusion facilities to change the flakedmaterial into pellets. The flaked or extruded material is referred to as rPET or rHDPEand in closed-loop processes is used to produce new plastic packaging.Most of the larger UK plastic reprocessors have the sorting, washing and flakingfacilities at the same site; hence discussions about the quality of materials reachingthese facilities include both the sorting process and the downstream reprocessing.Key messages for local authoritiesThe type of kerbside collection employed (single-stream co-mingled, two-streamor multi-stream) will determine the requirement for MRF and/or PRF sortingfacilities. Being aware of how these facilities function, and their requirementswith regard to feedstock quality, can help ensure that quality issues are dealtwith further upstream of the sorting process. Whilst PRFs typically are morespecialised and produce a higher quality plastic polymer output, in practice, dueto differences between facilities, it is necessary to be familiar with the specificsorting facility with which the local authority or its collection contractor is undercontract.Details of typical material grades post-MRF and PRF sorting processes aredescribed and illustrated in Appendix A. All technical terms are explained in theGlossary.4.3 Changing feedstockAs noted in section 4.2.2, most UK facilities were designed for input material thatis close to 40% PET, 40% HDPE and 20% other. However, feedstock is changingto include a greater proportion of non-bottle rigid plastic packaging. This issubstantially altering input proportions (for example, reducing concentrations of PETand HDPE), which is having knock-on effect on sorting and reprocessing efficiencies.4.3.1 Why has feedstock changed?There are various views on why the proportions of PET and HDPE in PRF feedstockhave fallen. Data does not support the idea that the sale of PET or natural HDPEbottles has diminished over time. In fact, the numbers of plastic bottles (i.e. PETand HDPE) entering the waste stream have actually risen in recent years as a resultof improved local authority collections and increased consumption. 6 The industry’smost common view is that proportions of HDPE and PET have decreased becausea greater number of local authorities with a plastic bottle collection are not activelymanaging the collection of target materials only. Over time, this has led to greatervolumes of non-bottle rigid plastic packaging entering the recycling stream, whicheffectively ‘dilutes’ the plastic bottle bales that are sent to PRFs.4.3.2 The impact of the changing feedstocksThe increased proportion of non-bottle rigid plastic packaging in the plastic bottlestream means that PRFs now have to cope with a stream significantly different fromthe one they were originally designed to handle. This means that:• sorting lines need to run at a slower speed to cope with processes that weredesigned to handle lower quantities of non-bottle rigid plastic packaging/contaminants;6. Recoup (2010) UK Household Plastic Packaging Collection Survey 2010,IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 15

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012• the net value of sorted material is lower due to increased amounts of lowergrades/contaminants;• the net impact of these two points ensures that income per hour is lower. This isreflected in the price paid for the input material (in other words, the price paid toan authority or its contractor);• the capacity of sorting processes is reduced with regard to final rPET and rHDPEproduction. This results in an increasing capacity gap between:• the UK’s capacity to sort bottles and rigid household plastic packaging; and• the UK’s capacity to wash and prepare PET and HDPE into rPET and rHDPE.4.4 Reprocessor view regarding the marketreaction to quality changesThe rise in non-bottle plastics within plastic bottle grades has begun to cause a shiftin the market. This shift has, however, been slow and as a result there is still limitedUK capacity for the sorting of a mixed plastics material stream to the standardrequired by many UK reprocessors.Reprocessor/PRF operator feedback suggests that around half of the recoveredplastic bottles and the bulk of other mixed plastic packaging are currently exported.Increasing quantities of non-bottle plastics are likely to lead to more plastics(including more bottles) being exported in the short term (or at least until additionalUK capacity for sorting non-bottle mixed plastics comes online). In cases where amixed plastic stream was previously a quality plastic bottle stream, UK reprocessorsand manufacturers are missing out.Key messages for local authoritiesThis section has highlighted significant feedstock problems for the reprocessorsas increasing amounts of mixed plastic packaging dilute the presence of PET andHDPE bottles. Fundamentally, this is reflected back to local authorities as a cost,through a reduction in the price they receive for their plastic bottles.This major impact on both reprocessors and local authorities clearly suggeststhat the rise of mixed plastic packaging recycling is posing a significant qualityissue for the current market. At present, a further problem is the limited UKinfrastructure for sorting plastic bottles from a mixed plastic packaging grade toproduce a high quality product.Key messages for local authoritiesThe key message from the UK reprocessors/PRF operators to local authorities isthat presently the collection of all household plastic packaging (either becauseof a specific focus on mixed plastic packaging, or a lack of management of abottle-only collection) may be contributing to the export of plastic bottles thatcould otherwise be sorted and reprocessed in the UK. Retaining materials withinScotland in order to reap the economic benefits of reprocessing is an importantpart of the Scottish Government’s Zero Waste Plan. This is strongly supported byboth Zero Waste Scotland and WRAP in both Scotland and England.IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 16

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012UK reprocessors/PRF operators have voiced some concerns about the exportof these materials. Whilst there will be many reputable overseas reprocessors,there may also be some examples where working conditions and environmentalprotection are of a questionable standard. In addition to social and environmentalconcerns, the export market is also having an economic impact, with UKreprocessors being outbid for materials. This is because overseas operatorstypically have lower overheads due to lower energy, labour and disposal costs. Thecost of shipping does little to close this gap, allowing overseas reprocessors topay a significant premium for lower quality material that requires greater levels ofsorting, cleaning and processing.Local authorities can have increased confidence in the end market for theirproduct by ensuring a good level of reporting by contractors to assist in thetraceability of the recyclables they collect. Authorities can also use evaluationcriteria in the procurement process (of either service contractors or reprocessors)to increase the likelihood of higher quality recycling (e.g. closed-loop recycling).In order to do this, it is possible to use quality criteria relating to the security ofoutlets, material traceability and end uses of materials, alongside price criteria.4.5 Reprocessor/PRF view on MRFsAll PRF operators/reprocessors report that some MRFs are contributing to theproblems that PRFs are experiencing with PET and HDPE concentrations. This ispartly due to higher levels of non-bottle plastics in their MRF outputs, but also due tohigher levels of non-plastics such as paper, glass and textiles.It is reported that sorting processes in some MRFs are inadequate in terms of theircapability to produce a high quality bottle grade. This may be further exacerbated assome MRF operators (according to feedback from PRFs/reprocessors) do not feelthere is sufficient economic advantage to sort properly. As a result these operatorsare producing outputs that cause process problems in PRFs through, for example,glass contamination, which is abrasive and contributes to machinery wear; textilecontamination, which frequently gets tangled in belts and other machinery; orstreams of bottle PET and bottle HDPE natural which contain significant proportionsof other mixed non-bottle plastic grades.Reprocessor/PRF feedback is less clear on whether some MRFs may also providepart of the solution. A number of more modern MRFs sort plastics into a largenumber of plastic categories, including sorting PET-rich and HDPE-rich products. Intheory, this sorting should replace some of the necessary bottle sorting capacity thatis required. However, reprocessors report that these materials are rarely sorted to ahigh enough standard to be used without being sent through the entire PRF sortingprocess. As a result, the additional premium that is asked for these materials isarguably higher than their worth to UK reprocessors.IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 17

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20124.6 Reprocessor/PRF view on technicalcapabilityThe lack of capacity to effectively sort bottles from a mixed plastic packaging streamis reportedly due to the limited availability of appropriate technologies in the UK,but this is not to say that the technology does not exist and that it will not developrapidly in the coming years. There are no major technical problems in sorting thesematerials if a plant has been designed to take them. There are, however, potentialeconomic barriers relating to the cost of sorting lower-value materials such as mixedplastic packaging (which will mostly be exported once sorted), largely due to thelower sorting costs abroad.Possible minor issues associated with sorting mixed plastic packaging may beencountered when dealing with the sorting of multi-polymer composite packaging.For example, an HDPE tray with a PET film lid still attached may be sorted by anoptical sorter into either the HDPE stream or the PET stream, thereby contaminatingeither stream. There are also minor issues with elevated levels of food residues,which contribute to machinery wear and increase the costs of washing processes.Key messages for local authoritiesIt is important to understand the specific capabilities of the MRF facility acceptingmaterials from the local authority. The collection scheme design, and materialstargeted, should be taken into account when procuring MRF contracts, to ensurecompatibility between the collection system and MRF input specification.IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 18

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20125 Plastic bottle collection in the UKOverviewAlthough the collection of plastic bottles has increased dramatically over the lastdecade, capture rates are still relatively low. It is important to be aware of how alocal authority’s capture rate benchmarks against other authorities, in order tounderstand an authority’s scope for improvement in the future.Figure 6 Rise in tonnes of plastic bottles collected by bring and kerbside collectionschemes in the UK450,000400,000350,000The collection of plastic bottles has increased dramatically over the last decade, fromless than 13,000 tonnes in 2000 to over 280,000 tonnes in 2010 (Figure 6). 7Recoup reports that 548,000 tonnes of plastic bottles were consumed in 2005. Of this,an estimated 23,000 tonnes were consumed outside the home, while the remainder– 525,000 tonnes or 96% – entered the household waste stream. Recoup assumed anannual growth rate of 2% per year, which gave a total consumption of 593,000 tonnes ofplastic bottles in 2009 (568,000 tonnes assumed to have been consumed in the home).Tonnes300,000250,000200,000150,000100,00050,000At this rate of growth, it is reported that recycling rates for plastic bottles haveincreased from 13% in 2005 to 48.5% in 2010 (rates for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009were 20%, 35%, 39%, and 46% respectively). 8,901994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012Bring bottleKerbside bottleNon bottle bringNon bottle kerbside7. Recoup (2011) UK Household Plastic Packaging Collection Survey 2011,presentation delivered by Stuart Foster, Deputy CEO of Recoup.8. Recoup (2011) UK Household Plastic Packaging Collection Survey 2011,presentation delivered by Stuart Foster, Deputy CEO of Recoup.9. Recoup (2010) UK Household Plastic Packaging Collection Survey 2010,Source: Recoup (2011) UK Household Plastic Packaging Collection Survey 2011, presentation delivered byStuart Foster, Deputy CEO of Recoup.IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlePlastic collectionbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 19

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012Recent rises in capture rates have been associated with expanding kerbsidecollection services and a decreasing reliance on bring sites. This is illustratedin Figure 7, which shows that between 2009 and 2010 plastic bottle collectionincreased by 18,051 tonnes; this rise was due to an increasing reliance upon kerbsidecollections, with a slight fall in tonnage collected via bring sites.Although the capture rate for plastic bottles has increased markedly in recentyears it is still relatively low at 48.5%, especially considering that in 2009/10 87% ofUK households had access to a kerbside collection service which collected plasticbottles. According to Recoup’s 2010 survey 74% of authorities collecting plasticbottles at the kerbside offered a plastic bottle-only service, with the remaining 26%offering collection services for non-bottle rigid plastic packaging (pots, tubs and traysonly) or mixed plastics packaging (including plastic films).Figure 7 Breakdown of the percentage and quantity of plastic packaging collectedvia scheme type (2009–2010)200971%2%16%12%Plastic bottle kerbside(215,573 tonnes)Plastic bottle bring(47,473 tonnes)Other plastic bring(4,921 tonnes)Key messages for local authoritiesOther plastic kerbside(35,442 tonnes)In order to get a good understanding of each local authority’s plastic bottlerecycling performance it is recommended that WRAP’s kerbside dry recyclingperformance benchmarking tool is used (http://labenchmark.wrap.org.uk/). Thisshows the latest analysis of national datasets and the breakdown by ONS/nearest10neighbour group. 120101%20%Plastic bottle kerbside(233,832 tonnes)Plastic bottle bring(47,265 tonnes)65% 13%Other plastic bring(5,141 tonnes)Other plastic kerbside(71,223 tonnes)10. Waste & Resources Action Programme (2011) Dry Recycling Performance BenchmarksSource: Recoup (2010) UK Household Plastic Packaging Collection Survey 2010,www.recoup.org/business/default.asp; and Recoup (2011) UK Household Plastic Packaging CollectionSurvey 2011, presentation delivered by Stuart Foster, Deputy CEO of Recoup.IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlePlastic collectionbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 20

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20126 Scheme designWho is this section for?• Local authorities without a plastic bottle collection service; and• Local authorities wishing to redesign/retender their collection service.OverviewThis section discusses system design features such as containment and collectionfrequency, as well as how to counter contamination through effective design. Italso describes features of the service that can be dealt with effectively throughthe commissioning and procurement process, such as contractor reporting andcommunications.The way in which collection systems are designed impacts upon the materialmixture within which plastic bottles are collected. This can range from a mixtureof plastic bottle polymers at one end of the scale, to a co-mingled mixture of dryrecyclable materials collected for recycling at the other.For authorities with a plastic bottle collection system in place, information derivedfrom WRAP’s online benchmarking tool for dry recycling performance 10 11may instigatea service redesign for those authorities with potential for capture rate improvement.Alternatively, if the local authority is coming to the end of a collection contract, it maywish to revisit the overall operation of the scheme.A reprocessor’s perspectiveThere is no consistent view on what local authorities should be doing. However,there are some emerging themes that two or more reprocessors haveexpressed. With regard to managing the mixture of mixed plastic packagingand plastic bottles it is suggested that local authorities:• Carefully consider the consequences of specifying a mixed plasticscollection or allowing plastic bottle-only services to drift towards a mixedplastic packaging collection; and• Consider the available UK sorting capacity to deal with mixed plasticpackaging and bottles.For local authorities without a plastic bottle collection system in place, the processwill have to start by systematically planning and designing a collection scheme whichbest suits local demands and needs. This section addresses key decision-makingareas.In the context of this guide, ‘scheme design’ can mean either:• procurement of the service contract whereby plastic bottles are specified as oneof the materials being collected; or• where plastic bottles are added to the list of recyclables being collected at thekerbside, either part way through a contract or as part of a change to an in-houseservice.11. Waste & Resources Action Programme (2011) Dry Recycling Performance Benchmarks,Date Accessed: 17 October 2011IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 21

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20126.1 Containment and collection frequency andtheir impact on quality and quantityPlastic bottles are a bulky material and therefore providing sufficient capacity fortheir storage and collection is vitally important. The sections which follow outlinesome of the key issues associated with containment and collection frequency thatneed to be considered when developing a new scheme.6.1.1 Recycling containmentThere are typically three options for the collection of plastic bottles at the kerbside:• kerbside collection boxes (typically ranging from 35 litres to 55 litres in capacity);• wheeled bins (usually 180 or 240 litre); or• sacks (either disposable or reusable).Anecdotal evidence suggests that material quality depends directly on the extentto which a scheme encourages households to sort plastic bottles into separatecontainers. Schemes include:• multi-stream or kerbside sort schemes which specify that plastic bottles must bein a particular container (kerbside box or sack); and• two-stream schemes which specify that plastic bottles must be in a specificcontainer, separated from at least some other recyclable materials.6.1.2 Recycling capacityThe recycling capacity available to a householder depends on:• the type and volume of container provided; and• the frequency of collection.Provision of sufficient recycling capacity has a direct effect on the quantity of plasticbottles collected. Thus, whether rolling out a new scheme or adding plastic bottles toa current collection system, recycling capacity needs to be carefully considered.WRAP considers that a volume equivalent to 100–120 litres per week is appropriatefor a kerbside collection scheme that includes plastic bottles.For co-mingled collections, which most commonly utilise a wheeled bin of 240 litrescollected on a fortnightly basis, capacity may be less of an issue than for a kerbsidesort scheme. Where smaller containers are provided, such as boxes or sacks, it isimportant to ensure that sufficient capacity in total is provided. It should be noted,however, that smaller containers are frequently collected weekly to compensate forthe smaller container volume.IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 22

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012For further information, refer to the following reports:• Entec UK Ltd (2007) Alternate Weekly Collections Guidance, Report for Waste& Resources Action Programme, July 2007• WRAP (2008) Kerbside Recycling: Indicative Costs and Performance,June 2008• Eunomia Research & Consulting (2009) The Financial Costs of CollectingMixed Plastics Packaging, Report for Waste & Resources Action Programme,June 2009• WRAP (2009) Choosing the Right Recycling Collection System, June 2009• Brook Lyndhurst Ltd (2009) Waste Collection Commitment, Report for Waste &Resources Action Programme and Local Government Association, August 2009• Resource Futures (2010) Analysis of Kerbside Dry Recycling Performancein the UK 2008/09, Report for the Waste & Resources Action Programme,September 2010Key messages for local authoritiesRecycling capacity directly affects capture rates and must therefore be carefullyconsidered by local authorities. Given the scope of this guide, it is clearly notpossible to discuss all collection system types in detail; thus, the above genericdescription of container provision and collection frequency is vastly simplified.It aims merely to highlight the main alternatives and how overall capacity isdetermined by the interrelationship between container volume and collectionfrequency. The main point is that if recycling capacity proves to be a limiting factorfor the householder, anecdotal evidence suggests that an increasing number ofpeople may revert to placing recyclables into the residual waste bin. This seemsto be particularly true where an alternate weekly collection system is in place (i.e.where recyclables are collected one week and refuse the next).Sufficient recycling capacity for the target materials must be made availablein order to maximise the potential for plastic bottle captures (see WRAP’sbenchmarking study regression analysis results on the impact of containmentvolume on yields). 11 126.1.3 Refuse containmentRestricting the capacity of residual waste containment, whilst also providingsufficient recycling capacity, can clearly encourage householders to divert dryrecyclables from their residual waste bin (this is particularly true for bulky itemssuch as plastic bottles). However, there may be an unintended consequenceof restricting such residual capacity. Anecdotal evidence suggests that whereresidual capacity is restricted too much, i.e. there is insufficient room for ahouseholder’s waste, the overflow may be placed in the recycling container. Thiscan result in a high level of contamination, which may lead to the whole recyclingcontainer being rejected and disposed of in the residual waste stream. This isclearly the exact opposite of the intended effect.12. Waste & Resources Action Programme (2011) Dry Recycling Performance Benchmarks,IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 23

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20126.2 Commissioning and procurementBesides containment and collection frequency issues, the commissioning/procurement stage is the best time to deal with a series of other issues includingcontamination, reporting and contractor communications. Where services arecontracted out, specific service requirements must be outlined in the servicespecification document and the conditions of contract.Figure 8 Onboard computer systems can be used to provide systematic and effectivemonitoring and feedback6.2.1 Policy on dealing with contaminationIt is important to be clear about the authority’s approach to dealing with unspecifiedmaterials put out by service users. A clear policy will ensure minimal confusion whenit comes to staff training and actually rolling out the scheme. If collection servicesare to be contracted out, the authority should specify that the contracting firmprovides a method statement on how it will implement the service rules. There are anumber of approaches that can be adopted with regard to dealing with contaminationat the kerbside. These are outlined in more detail in section 7, which coverscommunication with residents.6.2.2 Reporting requirementsOne reprocessor reported that Stirling Council was producing good quality materialsand that they achieve this partly through the use of onboard computer systems.Using this technology, the authority is effectively able to monitor and report onincidents when households place non-target items out for recycling.A case study of Stirling Council is provided in Table 2.Local authorities should stipulate that all contractors give details of contaminationlevels in their regular reports, and that they make efforts to reduce contamination inpoor-performing areas by giving direct feedback to service users.An onboard computer system in each collection vehicle (Figure 8) is an increasinglycommon and effective method for data recording. Such systems, which frequentlyinclude portable hand-held devices, can report in real time households that have notfollowed the authority’s service rules.IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 24

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012Table 2 Stirling Council. An example of good quality material arising from goodpractice in kerbside communications and efficient management of contaminationStirling Council: A case studyService descriptionRecycling is collected via a multi-stream weekly box collection along with aseparate food waste collection. Refuse and garden waste are collected in wheeledbins on an alternate weekly cycle.Lessons learnedThe council was identified as producing good quality material and has beencollecting kerbside sorted plastic bottles since 2007. The authority recentlyintroduced a separate food waste collection service and as part of this undertookan extensive campaign to help residents understand which materials can andcannot be recycled. The authority also provides clear online information aboutits recycling services and explains its rationale for not collecting mixed plasticpackaging.6.2.3 Communications through the recycling chainIt is important to establish on-going communications between the different levelsof the recycling chain; in other words, to ensure that there are established meansof communication by which feedback from reprocessors can reach contractors, theauthority and householders.Effective scheme design is integral to optimal performance (both in terms of quantityand quality). Key factors to consider when designing the kerbside infrastructureinclude:• collection frequency (for both residual and recycling);• container choice (for both residual and recycling);• contamination policy; and• reporting requirements and communications with contractors and reprocessors.The authority operates a strict policy with regard to contamination: boxescontaining any non-targeted items are rejected at the kerbside with a noticeindicating which materials cannot be accepted. The collection crew record alloffences in real time using an onboard computer system, and on the secondoffence households are issued with a written letter. This letter tells the residentsabout the recycling service and what materials can be put out for recycling.All plastic bottles are taken to the authority’s depot where they are bulked andbaled before being sent on for reprocessing within the UK.IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 25

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20127 HOUSEHOLD COMMUNICATIONSWho is this section for?• Authorities without a plastic bottle collection service (sections 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3)• Authorities with an established plastic bottle collection service(sections 7.1 and 7.3)OverviewEffective communication is of central importance to any collection scheme. Tothis end, section 7.2 provides advice for communications relating to the roll-outof a new collection scheme, while section 7.3 examines the need for on-goingcommunications.Behaviour is a complex issue, influenced by social and economic factors as well asa wide variety of moral and cultural norms. In view of this, the field of behaviourchange has received much attention in recent years, with a substantial body ofwork now covering the field of waste prevention and recycling. A comprehensivecommunication programme is essential to ensure that the authority achieves bothhigh capture rates and good quality material.7.1 Key messages for effective communicationsCommunications can be split into two categories:• communications associated with the roll-out of a new service (section 7.2); and• on-going communications to encourage participation and the correct use of theservices provided (section 7.3).Both on-going communications and communications associated with the roll-out ofa new service are integral to achieving high capture rates and good quality material.Communications aimed at promoting the effectiveness of plastic bottle collectionsshould bear the following important points in mind:• avoid the use of the plastic polymer numbering system, as this is known toconfuse householders;• where plastic bottles are added to an existing kerbside dry recycling service,inform all residents of the changes to the service and use this opportunity toremind them of the other services on offer;• supply the householder with a leaflet, or a sticker for their collection container,which clearly states exactly what can, and cannot, be placed into each bin;• give crew sufficient training on how to effectively and consistently implement anauthority’s policy on dealing with contamination;• implement a method for recording repeated misuses of the recycling servicesand ensure that the recycling officer follow ups on them with a letter or personalvisit;• to overcome any language or literacy issues ensure that all leaflets andcommunication media are as simple and pictorial as possible;• consider undertaking a doorstepping programme after the roll-out of a newscheme to ensure that hard-to-engage/low-performing areas are suitablytargeted; and• ensure that the service website is kept up to date and that it mirrors theinformation provided to the householder via printed media.HouseholdContentsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesGuidepage 26

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012Local authorities are referred to WRAP’s website for further advice on the designand production of communication programmes, information on the barriers torecycling at home, and a number of useful case studies. Improving Recycling throughEffective Communications will be of particular interest to those wishing to create anycommunications programme.To communicate the plastic bottle message wider we have created communicationsmaterial which has gone through rigorous consumer testing, including flyers, postersand bus advertising. This can be found on our Recycle Now partners site.Scottish local authorities will be sent a CD of the resources by 6 February 2012.Support is available at partnerbranding@zerowastescotland.org.uk or 0808 100 2040.7.2 Communications prior to service roll-outBefore a new collection service is introduced, it is essential that all householdsare made aware of the intended changes, why they are being made, and what theimplications of these changes will be for them e.g. in sorting practices, range ofmaterials accepted and collection times. As mentioned above, WRAP has produceda number of guides, cost estimates and case studies to help authorities in theircommunication programmes.7.3 Types of on-going communications7.3.1 General communications to all residentsChanging people’s behaviour is often a long-term process that requires on-goingsupport with periodic reminders. This is especially true in neighbourhoods with ahigh turnover of residents. On-going communications are aimed at improving thequantity and quality of captured materials by providing general reminders aboutthe services on offer. It is also important to give feedback on the performance of theservice and to thank residents for their efforts. All communication media shouldbe as simple and pictorial as possible to ensure that they are accessible to all. Newcommunication programmes can be initiated when there are slight modifications toother areas of the existing service, for example:• when a new material is added to a service; or• when collection frequencies are altered.These are times when residents can be reminded of the full range of recyclingservices provided, including plastic bottle collections.7.3.2 Targeted communications at the point of collectionAn ideal opportunity for on-going communications is at the point of collection andthis has been shown to have a marked impact on improving the quality of materialplaced out for collection. If collection crews identify contamination at the kerbside,and adopt a structured and consistent procedure for notifying the responsiblehouseholds, it is often possible, over time, to significantly reduce contaminationlevels on any given round.CrewsAt the point of collection, communication with the householder is undertakenin the first instance by the crews. Should contamination be identified, a typicalfeedback loop would begin with a crew member leaving a written communicationthat described the materials that are acceptable and those that are not. Thisapproach provides justification for not emptying a container or for leaving somematerials behind.HouseholdContentsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesGuidepage 27

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012Written feedback can be in the form of:• bin stickers;• bin tags; and/or• a feedback card through the letterbox.Anecdotal evidence suggests that bin tags are more popular with residents, as theyare less permanent – although they can only be used on containers with handles. Itis always worthwhile posting a card through a resident’s letterbox, in case the bintag or sticker is not seen by the householder responsible for recycling. The types ofinformation that can be included on a bin sticker are shown in Figure 9.Figure 9 An example of a bin sticker used in CoventrySorryWe have left materials we do notcollect for recycling. Please see overleaffor a list of materials we can recycle.Contact Coventry 0500 834333www.coventry.gov.uk/recycling coventrydirect@coventry.gov.ukCrew trainingAll crew members should be aware of the local authority’s policy on dealing withcontamination and be trained in the best course of action. If a strict approach istaken. It is essential that a consistent message is sent to residents. This requiresthat all collection crews are suitably trained and adopt a common approach. If theauthority uses onboard computer systems in its collection vehicles, staff will need tobe trained to use them.Crew reportingCrews should email a daily report (or communicate in real time if this technologyis available – see the Stirling case study in Table 2) after each round and highlightany issues for the attention of the recycling officer. If any issues arise during theday’s rounds, the recycling officer should follow these up by, for example, writing aletter or even paying a personal visit (this may be especially effective for flats whereit might be difficult to identify the precise households concerned). If there are anyrepeated issues with a particular household, then the managing officer should bealerted. In such cases, a recycling officer should be sent to the household to discussthe contamination issues.www.coventry.gov.uk /recyclingIt is important to ensure that the sticker/tag/form is quick to complete – a noticewhich just requires a simple tick is the best solution. It is worth remembering thatany writing by a crew member will be done in a rush (and will take up the crewmember’s time), so the message may not be clear to the householder.When designing feedback forms, consultation with the crews is important as they arethe ones most likely to know the most common types of contamination.HouseholdContentsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesGuidepage 28

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20127.4 Case studiesThree case studies were identified for their high performance in the recovery ofplastic bottles: Kettering Borough Council, the Royal Borough of Kingston uponThames, and the London Borough of Redbridge. In 2009/10 each authority wascollecting between 15.5 and 18.1 kg of plastic bottles per household, which placesthem amongst the higher performers nationally. The details for each authority andthe key messages from each are outlined in Table 3.In each case the local authorities appear to have achieved high capture rates becauseof their effective communication schemes, combined with a strict policy on rejectingcontamination at the kerbside. Two examples of communication materials usedby Kettering Borough Council and the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thamesare reproduced in Appendix B. It should be noted, however, that these are notpresented as examples of best practice as such, but are reproduced here to helpillustrate some of the clear forms of communication used by the two case studies.As stated above, WRAP has provided substantive information on developing andimplementing communication programmes and these should be consulted forfurther details, for example the Recycle Now partners site.Table 3 Three case study examples of authorities achieving high plastic bottle capture rates (

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012Case Study TwoKingston upon ThamesRefuse:• 180-litre wheeled bin for householdswith up to five residents – 240 litrefor households greater than five(flats receive a 240 to 820 litrewheelie or bulk bin) – collectedfortnightly.Recycling (kerbside sort scheme):• One 55 litre box for plastic bottles,paper, glass bottles/jars, cans/tins, textiles and shoes, food anddrink cartons, batteries – collectedweekly.• Cardboard stored in white bag andcollected weekly.• Food waste is collected weeklyfrom a 23 litre caddy (residents areprovided with a 5 litre caddy forindoor use).240 litre wheeled bin for garden waste(charged service) – collected fortnightly.The majority of households in Kingstonupon Thames are serviced by a kerbsidesort scheme (45,000); while a smallernumber have their dry recyclablescollected co-mingled (6,000). Overall,recycling/composting performance was46.16% in 2009/10 (against an average inEngland and London of 39.7% and 31.8%respectively). In 2009/10 a total of 732tonnes of plastic bottles were collectedvia the kerbside sort collection service,which amounted to an impressive 16.28kg per household over the year.The authority rolled out a new service in 2008 and at first experienced a few issueswith contamination. However, this was soon remedied by an effective communicationsprogramme. The authority has a strict approach to contamination and rejects anycontamination at the kerbside with a contamination sticker. An example of theauthority’s online communication sheet is shown in Appendix B.HouseholdContentsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesGuidepage 30

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012Case Study ThreeLondon Borough of RedbridgeService DescriptionRefuse:• Residual waste collected in sacks ona weekly basis.Recycling (two-stream):Two 55l boxes collected weekly:• first for tins/cans, glass bottles/jars, and plastic bottles (no otherplastics); and• second for paper and card.Collections completed by contractor:Enterprise.In 2009/10 and 2010/11, using a twostreamcollection scheme, the authoritycollected 1,745 and 1,798 tonnes ofplastic bottles, respectively. In 2009/10plastic bottles constituted 13% of thekerbside dry recycling, or 18.05 kg perhousehold over the year (assumingcollection from 96,688 households– collections increased from 94,221households in the first quarter to 99,155households in the fourth). In 2009/10 theauthority achieved an overall recyclingrate of 31.6% (average for London was31.8%), up from just 7% in 2000/1.The council started collecting plastics at the kerbside in 2004. Initially, this servicewas provided on a fortnightly basis and in 2007 weekly collections commenced. Whenintroducing a second box for the collection of card (the authority started out with onerecycling box) the council undertook a comprehensive communication campaign,consisting of leaflets and an extensive doorstepping campaign. The authority is nowusing Recycle Now iconography, a borough magazine, and occasional doorsteppingcampaigns to promote recycling within the area. It does not accept contaminatedboxes and leaves a note highlighting unacceptable levels of contamination when itoccurs. This leads to a reported contamination level of just 2% at the sorting phase.HouseholdContentsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesGuidepage 31

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012A reprocessor’s perspectiveWhilst there is not a consistent view on what local authorities should be doingwith regard to household communications, there are some emerging themesthat several reprocessors have expressed:• authorities should send out a clear message that all plastic bottles(regardless of polymer) can be recycled; and• bottle tops are not a problem.Table 4 highlights a number of other quality issues that are of concern toreprocessors and should be borne in mind when devising communication schemeson plastic bottles. Some are more relevant than others, and the ease with which theycan be tackled may also vary widely, depending on local conditions and openness tochange.It should be borne in mind that local authorities may not be best placed to resolve theissues highlighted, but they might be useful when considering messages to serviceusers.Table 4 Quality issues raised by reprocessorsReprocessor quality issueElevated levels of non-target plastic items (i.e. items otherthan plastic bottles)The presence of PVC bottlesMilk bottles containing milk contaminants, leading to flies,maggots and higher washing costsSoft drink bottles surviving with contents, which are finallyreleased in PRF processes, causing higher machinerymaintenance costs (carbonic acid is a strong corrosive)The presence of natural HDPE detergent bottlesElevated levels of dirt and greasePVC labels on PET bottlesActionTake actions to improve MRF management or feedback to householders receiving multi-stream services.This is largely a problem for the packaging industry to be aware of. Whilst the presence of PVC bottles isan issue, it is still felt that a clear message to householders that all bottles (regardless of polymer) can berecycled is the most appropriate action for the local authority.Local authorities could make service users aware of the problem through on-going communications.Local authorities could make service users aware of the problem.This is largely a problem for the packaging industry to be aware of. Whilst the presence of natural HDPEdetergent bottles is an issue, it is still felt that a clear message to householders that all bottles (regardless ofpolymer) can be recycled is the most appropriate action for the local authority.This can be addressed through improved MRF management and on-going communications with households.This is largely a problem for the packaging industry to be aware of.HouseholdContentsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesGuidepage 32

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012Key messages for local authoritiesCommunications fall into two categories:• those associated with the roll-out of a new service; and• on-going communications to encourage participation and the proper use of theservices provided.Both are integral to achieving high capture rates and good quality material. Theabove discussion on communications and the three case studies give rise to severalkey points. Local authorities should:• inform all residents of changes to their service;• supply the householder with clear details of what can, and cannot, be placed ineach container;• ensure that all crew members understand the authority’s policy on dealing withcontamination;• devise a method for recording repeated misuses of the recycling services;• ensure that all leaflets and communication media are as simple and pictorial aspossible;• avoid the use of the plastic polymer numbering system, as it is known toconfuse householders;• consider undertaking a doorstepping programme after the roll-out of a newscheme to ensure that hard- to-reach/poor-performing areas are suitablytargeted; and• ensure that their website is kept up to date and that it mirrors the informationprovided to the householder via the leaflet.In developing communication media and programmes, refer to WRAP’s17comprehensive resources for further assistance. 1213. Waste & Resources Action Programme (2011) Communications:Resources to Help you Improve High Quality, Effective and Efficient Communications, Recycle Nowpartners website.HouseholdContentsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesGuidepage 33

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20128 POINT OF COLLECTIONOverviewThe point of collection provides a critical ‘window of opportunity’ for identifyingand controlling contamination. Overall material quality can be improved byrejecting contamination at the kerbside, while at the same time educatinghouseholds (assuming crews use appropriate reporting strategies – see section6.2.2 above).Anecdotal evidence suggests that over time a strict policy on contaminationimproves the quality of material set out and helps save crews’ time at thekerbside. This section highlights some important actions that can be undertakenat the kerbside to improve the quality of material collected.The type of actions which can be taken, and the ease with which they can becarried out, depend largely on an authority’s chosen form of containment andthe design of the collection system. If, after reading the following sections and18referring to WRAP’s online benchmarking tool, 13 an authority wishes to alter itsscheme design in any way, then it will be wise to refer back to section 6.0.Outlined below are a number of key points which can be considered at the point ofcollection – or should be borne in mind by those who have not already rolled out acollection service for plastic bottles.8.1 How the containment type and collectionsystem influences qualityThe key influencing factor at the kerbside is the crews’ ability to regulate thecollection system. The extent to which a crew can do this depends on a combinationof both the containment used and the collection methodology. The followingsub-sections cover a range of containment types/collection schemes and aimto demonstrate how these influence the crews’ ability to influence householderbehaviour.8.1.1 Multi-stream or kerbside sort collectionPlastic bottles collected in boxes which are fully sorted at the kerbsideThe materials set out for collection in a box are clearly visible as they are beingsorted into material types at the kerbside. Any unspecified materials can be leftbehind in the box by the collection crew. There is a clear incentive for the crew to dothis, as leaving materials can reduce the sorting time and help to maximise vehiclecapacity, thereby potentially making their round quicker. Leaving the contaminatingmaterials in the box also provides a direct feedback loop to the householder, whichshould impact upon behaviour for future collections.18. WRAP (2011) Dry Recycling Performance BenchmarksIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 34

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20128.1.2 Two-stream collectionPlastic bottles collected in boxes which are partially sorted at the kerbside/plasticbottles collected in boxes before being tipped into a slave wheeled binSome box collection schemes specify the materials that should be placed in eachcontainer. Under such circumstances, one box may be reserved solely for plasticbottles and cans. Such co-mingled cans and bottles might then be tipped into aspecific compartment (or slave bin) while the remainder would be manually sorted.While it may be possible to remove contaminants before tipping this box of plasticbottles and cans, this is likely to be less thorough. Crew training can encouragethis good practice but it will still add time to the collection process and is likely todiscourage thorough quality control.8.1.3 Co-mingled collectionPlastic bottles collected in a wheeled binA fully co-mingled bin-based system presents difficulties in identifying anycontaminating materials as it is difficult to ascertain what is in the bin priorto emptying. The bin lid can be lifted to ensure there are no easily visiblecontaminants, but this does not preclude the possibility of hidden contamination.Furthermore, while bin weight can indicate severe levels of misuse (e.g. rubbledisposal), the majority of contaminants may not be easily identified in this manner.Plastic bottles collected in a single-use sackSingle-use sacks offer another possible solution. These can be put out separately oras part of a co-mingled recycling stream. However, operational experience suggeststhat time constraints limit a crew’s desire to prevent contamination from enteringthe recycling stream. Operatives tend to reject only those bags that are abnormallyheavy, or contain easily identifiable contaminants.One possible way forward is the use of transparent sacks that allow the identificationof contaminants within the bag. However, the subsequent solutions can createtheir own problems. Crew members could tear open such bags to remove thecontamination, but this is a slow process that may create litter. A second solution isto reject the whole sack but this may send a negative message to the householder,who may resort to putting recyclables in the waste bin.IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 35

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 20128.2 Crew trainingThe containment type and collection system largely determine the extent to whichcollection crews can identify and reduce the collection of contaminating materials.However, there is a need to train and retrain crews to help ensure that the authority’sservice rules are being followed. This is particularly important under systems wherethere is no direct incentive for crews to do this. In these systems such additionalchecking as lifting the lids of wheeled bins and sorting through materials representsadditional time and effort for the crews. Such additional effort would not typicallybe undertaken unless training is effective and correct working practices strictlyenforced.It is important when training crews to emphasise the reasons why it is so importantto maximise material quality. This should focus on practical, local issues such asimproving council/contractor material revenues or reducing gate fees, alongsideenvironmental arguments.One relevant message that crews should receive as part of their training is thatinvesting their time in ‘educating the public’, through the provision of accurate andconsistent feedback, is likely to be time-saving in the long run as public behaviourwill improve over time. This of course is not always the case, particularly in areas ofhigh resident turnover.8.3 CompactionCompaction setting on the RCV can influence the ability to sort materials efficientlyat the MRF. High levels of compaction are more likely to exacerbate issues of bottlebale contamination, as well as increasing the amount of time taken for the MRF tosort material to a given quality standard. However, reducing compaction settingscan also reduce payloads, so a good balance should be struck between payloadand sorting issues. From the local authority’s perspective, this may manifest itselfthrough a higher MRF gate fee.Key messages for local authoritiesThe point of collection provides important opportunities for managing the qualityof captured materials. The level of influence that a well-trained crew can haveat the kerbside is considerably greater for a multi-stream system than a singlestreamsystem.IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 36

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012Table 5 Angus Council – an example of compaction at the depot9 POST-COLLECTION SORTING AND BALINGOverviewThis section is relevant for authorities wishing to design a new multi-stream orkerbside sort scheme and for authorities that already operate one. In systemswhere plastic bottles are collected via a multi-stream service, a post-collectionsorting process prior to any baling can be beneficial. This may be a very simplesystem such as a manual sorting line from which non-bottle plastics, andother contaminants, are removed. Such practices can play an important role inimproving materials quality and increasing the value of products passed on toreprocessors, in turn increasing income for the authority.As a means of improving material quality for systems where plastic bottles arecollected via a kerbside sort or multi-stream collection, a post-collection sortingprocess prior to any baling can be beneficial. This may be a very simple systemsuch as a manual sorting line from which non-bottle plastics, cans where they arecollected in the same mix, and other contaminants are removed.During interviews, reprocessors stated that they greatly prefer densely packed andsecurely bound bales. For authorities that deliver materials direct to reprocessors,it may be worth investing in bottle piercing and baling equipment. One reprocessoridentified Angus Council as providing good quality baled plastic bottles and, as thecase study below suggests, this has been enhanced through the use of a bottlepiercing machine to aid compaction at the authority’s depot (Table 5).Post-collection sorting also provides an opportunity to undertake output qualitysampling of the collection rounds. Sampling can also be used to identify thecontamination levels of different rounds, which can be used constructively tohighlight areas in need of greater communications. Such immediate feedback can beextremely valuable and can also allow for long-term monitoring of trends.Angus Council: A case studyService descriptionRecycling is collected via a multi-stream weekly box collection. Refuse and gardenwaste are collected in wheeled bins on an alternate weekly cycle.Lessons learnedThe council was identified by a reprocessor as producing good quality materialand has been collecting plastic bottles at the kerbside since 2004 (collections ofthese items started in 2000 at each of the authority’s seven HWRCs). The councilhas invested in a bottle piercing machine at its depot to help improve compactionbefore materials are compressed and baled before being transported to theirdesignated plastics reprocessor. The bottle piercing machine is effectively a rollingspiked drum that pierces bottles fed into the machine. The authority built themachine for approximately £18,000.According to the authority, the low level of contamination means that the highcompaction rates are not a problem for their reprocessor and this saves transportcosts. The authority reports that the kerbside sort system and an effectivecommunications campaign helps ensure minimal levels of contamination. As aresult, the authority does not undertake any post-collection sorting at its depot.To ensure contamination is kept to a minimum, the council’s collection staffare instructed to reject non-target items at the kerbside. Dry recyclables aresorted into the collection vehicle and this gives staff ample opportunity to identifymisplaced items. These items are left behind with a note explaining why thematerials were rejected.The authority has run a number of communication programmes in the past,notably during the implementation of service changes. In addition, Angus Councilhas a number of avenues whereby it provides information on its recycling services.These include: the authority’s website, local authority news, pamphlets, andposters at each of its HWRCs.IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionPostcollectionsortingsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 37

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 201210 MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITIES (MRFS)OverviewThis section is relevant for authorities wishing to design a new scheme that willrequire sorting of dry recyclables at a MRF. It is also of relevance to authoritiesthat already use a MRF to separate out their plastic bottles from their dryrecycling. The aim is to highlight the ways in which quality can be improvedthrough improved MRF management.In order to maximise the quality of bottles being sent to reprocessors, it is importantthat local authorities consider the following when contracting with a MRF:• how the MRF operates;• what the value of the potential output streams from the MRF are; and• which markets does the MRF deliver to?Local authorities can influence the behaviour of MRF operators by using contractualincentives and obligations between the authority and the MRF. These can incorporatestrict requirements/and or provision of incentives for MRF operators to maximise thequality of outgoing materials.MRF operators can influence quality of material via:• load inspection and feedback to local authorities, which makes identification oflow-performing areas possible;• random sampling;• improved sorting into different plastic polymers:• baling mixed bottles is usually the most cost-effective method for smallerMRFs ; or• as volumes grow, it can be financially preferable to sort out the main polymertypes – that is, PET (e.g. soft drinks) and HDPE (e.g. milk bottles), and also bycolour (e.g. natural/jazz).• improved baling:• tightly bound bales usually offer the best value and are preferred byreprocessors; and• loosely packed bales achieve less value and may even be rejected byreprocessors. Large horizontal balers can be used to produce tight bales(optimising machine settings for plastic bottles can increase shipmentweights by as much as 20%).A reprocessor’s perspectiveThere is no consistent view on what local authorities should be doing.However, a number of reprocessors suggested that the supply chain could beimproved by:• Carefully procuring collection and MRF services;• Considering whether there is sufficient sorting capacity;• Auditing what collection contractors and MRF operators do with thematerials that are collected; and• Checking that if local authority plastic bottles are exported the shipmentscomply with the rules relating to the export of wastes.An innovative response to monitoring contamination at the front end of a MRF hasbeen undertaken by Project Integra, which in 2006 opened a material analysis facility(MAF) at Veolia’s Alton MRF in Hampshire. The results of the contamination analysesare used to calculate returns on the sale of recyclables and to adjust WasteDataFlowentries. A case study of Project Integra’s MAF is shown in Table 6.IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingMaterial FacilitiesRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 38

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012Table 6 Project Integra. An example of good practice in contamination monitoringand controlProject Integra’s Material Analysis Facility: A case studyBackgroundProject Integra is a partnership between all of the district authorities inHampshire, Hampshire County Council, the unitary authorities of Portsmouth andSouthampton, and Veolia Environmental Services. All 750,000 households servedby Project Integra can access a co-mingled service for paper, card, aluminiumand steel cans, aerosols and plastic bottles. In order to maximise income andimprove the environmental benefits gained from the region’s recycling services,Project Integra has taken active steps to reduce contamination. Key to this was thedevelopment of a material analysis facility (MAF) in the spring of 2006. This facility,operated by Veolia Environmental Services, is attached to Alton MRF, one of twoMRFs operated by the partnership in Hampshire (together the two MRFs process157,000 tonnes of dry recyclables a year). The MAF was designed to fulfil threemain tasks:• analysis of incoming co-mingled dry recyclables – to allow assessment ofincoming material quality in relation to the input specification of the facility,apportionment of contamination across the partners and the identification oflow-performing areas;• analysis of other streams – for example, the analysis of residual waste(allowing capture rates to be estimated), and the analysis of the reject streamfrom the two MRFs (which supported the development of a business casefor adding magnetic and eddy current separation to this conveyor in order toseparate smaller metal items); and• analysis of outgoing sorted materials – to ensure that quality standards ofoutgoing products are maintained and sales values optimised.Alton MRF was opened in 2005 and the MAF was commissioned soon after.Initially contamination declined (from 9.66% in 2006/07 to 7.92% in 2007/8), butthen increased slowly year on year until reaching 9.27% in 2010/11 (see bar chartbelow). It is worth noting, however, that the increase in 2010/11 is most likelydue, at least in part, to a change in the sampling procedure used to measurecontamination levels. As described below, the sampling methodology wasmodified in 2010/11 to enable greater flexibility and to ensure that more detailcould be captured.Level of contamination (%)1098765432109.662006/77.928.272007/8 2008/9 2009/10 20010/11Year8.289.27IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingMaterial FacilitiesRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 39

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012The MAF’s success has been recognised with many awards and acknowledgedby the Environment Agency as an example of best practice in England. Thestrong commitment to maintaining the quality of incoming and outgoing productshas helped Project Integra to form good relationships with reprocessors, whoappreciate the consistent high quality materials provided by the two HampshireMRFs.MethodologyAs of 2010/11 analysis of contamination takes place three times each year, witheach event lasting seven weeks (it had previously been two nine-week slots). Overthese 21 weeks, which are exclusively dedicated to analysing contamination, theMAF collects six samples on a daily basis and manually sorts them into three maincategories (each sample comprises two representative sub-samples):• Recyclables – MRF accepted recyclables;• Contraries – recyclables which are not accepted at the MRF; and• Residues – non-recyclable materials.As of 2010 the recyclables category was further subdivided to provide moredetailed compositional breakdowns. Each year the MAF aims to collect samplesfrom at least 50% of the rounds run by each of the waste collection authorities.This enables low-performing areas to be identified by each authority andfacilitates the accurate apportionment of financial resources.The following infrastructure has been put in place for the analysis of the samples:• a hopper with two automated conveyor belts;• a cabin with nine sorting chutes;• electronic scales;• sampling crates;• two collection vehicles; and• a forklift.IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingMaterial FacilitiesRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 40

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012Costs and fundingThe MAF took approximately two months to construct, with an additional monthrequired to test and streamline operations. It cost approximately £100,000 todevelop, including the purchase of the forklift truck, scales and sampling crates.The facility employs five full-time staff, including a manager, a supervisor, acollection driver and two sorters who segregate the samples. The MAF operatesfive days a week, with Veolia Environmental Services running an extra shift toanalyse the composition of outgoing materials.Key messages for local authoritiesProject Integra has successfully demonstrated an innovative approach tocooperation between local authorities and their MRF contractor. Wheresuch arrangements are envisaged at the procurement stage, it is relativelystraightforward to introduce contractual requirements regarding qualitymanagement and control.At present the operational costs of the facility are split evenly between thefollowing three stakeholders:• 1/3 Veolia Environmental Services;• 1/3 waste disposal authorities (split according to population); and• 1/3 waste collection authorities (contribution split evenly between 13authorities).CommunicationsIn order to promote the collection of plastic bottles, consistent communicationswere provided across Project Integra’s waste collection authorities. A wideselection of media and approaches were used, including: leaflets, bin stickers,bin tags, fridge magnets, bus and RCV advertising, posters in supermarkets,and advertisements at bus shelters and in council magazines. In thesecommunications the description ‘bottle shaped and plastic’ has been used andattention has also been drawn to plastic bottles arising in all areas of the house –not just the kitchen.IntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingMaterial FacilitiesRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesContentsGuidepage 41

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012GLOSSARY• Clear PET bottles: mostly derived from beverage containers, such as soft drinksand mineral water.• Coloured HDPE bottles: typically used to make shampoo and laundry detergentbottles.• Coloured PET bottles: mostly derived from beverage containers and otherhousehold food and cosmetic products.• HWRC: household waste recycling centre• Material Recovery Facility (MRF): a separation plant where kerbside recyclablesare separated into material types and baled or loaded in bulk for furtherprocessing by specialist recyclers. These materials typically include paper, card,metals, mixed plastic bottles and sometimes glass. Some MRFs also separateone or more of the more abundant and higher value plastic bottle streams,typically PET or HDPE. Increasingly, MRFs concentrate on separating mixedplastic bottles for further separation by a specialist Plastics Recovery Facility(PRF).• Multi-stream, or kerbside sort: involves the sorting of materials at kerbside intodifferent compartments of a specialist collection vehicle.• Natural HDPE bottles: mostly used for the packaging of fresh milk.• Near-Infrared (NIR) sorting: an optical sorting technology used widely in plasticrecycling to enable plastic packaging and other plastic wastes to be separatedby polymer type and colour. This enables the production of high quality materialswhich can substitute for virgin polymers in the manufacture of new items.• Non-bottle rigid plastic packaging: non-bottle rigid plastic packaging typicallycomprises plastic pots, tubs and trays. This material category specificallyexcludes plastic bottles, construction plastics, foamed plastics, flexible plasticfilms and bulky household plastic items such as washing up bowls and toys.• PE: polyethylene (PE) is a plastic polymer that is used in a number of packagingitems (e.g. food packaging, film and bags).• Plastic bottles: household plastic bottles.• Plastic films: these are typically manually sorted and include a variety of plasticpolymers, most commonly low-density polyethylene (LDPE); materials includeplastic bags and plastic wrappings used for food and other household goods.• Plastic Recovery Facility (PRF): a facility set up specifically to sort plastics bypolymer type and/or colour. Some of the processes commonly featuring in a PRFmay also occur at the front end of a reprocessor site and some PRF operatorshave themselves invested in downstream reprocessing to make high-gradefinished recycled polymers.• PP: polypropylene (PP) is a plastic polymer that is used in a number of householditems (e.g. food containers and plastic cutlery/crockery).• PS: polystyrene (PS) is a plastic polymer which is used in a number of householditems (e.g. plastic cutlery/crockery and children’s toys).• PVC: Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is a biologically and chemically resistant plasticthat is typically used to produce non-food bottles, larger household items (e.g.children’s toys and plastic furniture) and construction materials (e.g. sewerpipes, door/window frames, coatings for electric wires, plastic tiles, etc.).• RCV: refuse collection vehicle• rHDPE: recycled high-density polyethylene (rHDPE) refers to post-consumerHDPE materials which have been reprocessed (e.g. cleaned and flaked) forinclusion in new products.• rPET: recycled polyethylene terephthalate (rPET) refers to post-consumer PETmaterials which have been reprocessed (e.g. cleaned and flaked) for inclusion innew products.• Rigid household plastic packaging: this stream contains a mixture of plasticpolymers used in general household packaging (e.g. margarine tubs, yogurt potsand food trays) and plastic bottles.• Single-stream co-mingled: involves the collection of materials in a singlecompartment vehicle with the sorting of these materials carried out at a MRF(materials recovery facility).• Two-stream co-mingled: residents are provided with two recycling containersand are asked to place different materials in each container, typically paper/card (fibre) in one and plastics, glass and cans (containers) in the other. Thesematerials are kept separate, but are generally collected on one vehicle which hastwo chambers.GlossaryContentsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesGuidepage 42

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012APPENDIX A: PLASTIC BOTTLE GRADESTypical grades of plastic bottles post-PRF/MRFPlastics polymers (predominantly HDPE and PET) are typically sorted usingautomated and manual sorting techniques. Manual sorting of the different plasticpolymers is reported to be most prevalent in the UK, with optical sorting used inMRFs with large throughputs (i.e. where the cost of installation can be justified). 14 19There is no one complete list of products produced by PRFs and MRFs. MRFsin particular vary considerably in the type and combination of products that areproduced. However, typical post-PRF/MRF plastic grades are as follows (andillustrated in Figure 10):• Clear PET bottles – mostly derived from beverage containers, such as softdrinks and mineral water. Their commercial value means that they are frequentlyseparated out. After sorting the final baled products frequently contain between2.6% and 9.5% non-target items. 15 20• Coloured PET bottles – mostly derived from beverage containers and otherhousehold food and cosmetic products; final baled products frequently containbetween 5.6% and 10.7% non-target items.• Coloured HDPE bottles – typically used to make shampoo and laundry detergentbottles. Final baled products frequently contain between 6.9% and 11.3% nontargetitems.• Natural HDPE bottles – mostly used for the storage of fresh milk. Their value incombination with efficient sorting ensures low levels of contamination in the finalbaled product (median lies between 1.9% and 4.0% of non-target items).• Non-bottle rigid plastic packaging – typically comprises plastic pots, tubs andtrays. This material category specifically excludes plastic bottles, constructionplastics, foamed plastics, flexible plastic films and bulky household items suchas washing up bowls and toys.• Plastic films – these are typically manually sorted and include a variety of plasticpolymers, the most common being low-density polyethylene (LDPE). Othermaterials include bags and wrappings used for food and other household goods.Figure 10 Examples of different commonly used plastic polymers and their products.A. Clear PET used for mineral water; B. Coloured PET used for common householdproducts; C. HDPE natural used for milk containers; and D. mixed plastic packagingconsisting of various plastic polymersACBD19. Waste & Resources Action Programme (no date given) Recovering Value from MRFs,20. Figures on contamination presented here and immediately below come from median figurespresented in: ENVIROS (2009) MRF Quality Assessment Study, Report for the Waste & ResourcesAction Programme, November 2009,AppendicesContentsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesGuidepage 43

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012In MRFs it is not uncommon for this list to be reduced to a small number of productstreams such as, rigid household plastic packaging and plastic films. In some MRFs,further sorting occurs to extract the more valuable streams such as Clear PET andNatural HDPE, leaving behind a mixed plastic packaging stream (with a low contentof valuable items) and plastic films. The larger MRFs commonly produce the fullrange of materials listed above; a few examples of the baled products are shownFigure 11.Figure 11 Examples of different MRF outputs. A. HDPE Natural; B. Clear PET; C.rigid household plastic packaging; and D. plastic film 16 21ABCD21. Figures taken from: Sante Fe Solid Waste Management Agency (2009) Plastics Recycling Info, dateaccessed: 20 October 2011 and Nextek Ltd (2009) Commercial Scale Mixed Plastic Recycling, Reportfor the Waste & Resources Action Programme, June 2009AppendicesContentsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesGuidepage 44

WRAP: Kerbside Collection of Plastic Bottles Guide – January 2012APPENDIX B: EXAMPLE COMMUNICATIONSExamples of household communicationsFigure 13 Example of online refuse and recycling details provided by the RoyalBorough of Kingston upon ThamesExamples of communications used by two case study authorities are provided inFigure 12 and Figure 13.Figure 12 Example of communication leaflet provided by Kettering Borough CouncilSource: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (2011) A to Z of Recycling in KingstoSource: Kettering Borough Council, What Goes Where? Information on what should go in each bin.ContentsIntroductionStructure ofthis guidePolicycontextMarketcontextPlasticbottlecollectionSchemedesignHouseholdPoint ofcollectionPostcollectionsortingMaterialRecyclingFacilitiesGlossaryAppendicesGuidepage 45

For further information about support availableto local authorities visitwww.wrap.org.uk/local_authoritiesor contactCQadmin@wrap.org.ukWhile steps have been taken to ensure its accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connectionwith this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate andnot used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used tosuggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more details, please refer to our Terms & Conditions on our website – www.wrap.org.ukWRAP is delivered by:Waste & ResourcesAction ProgrammeThe Old Academy21 Horse FairBanbury, Oxon OX16 0AHTel: 01295 819 900Fax: 01295 819 911E-mail: info@wrap.org.ukHelpline freephone0808 100 2040www.wrap.org.ukContentspage 46